Tony Sheldon (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I want to go to a couple of things the minister has just stated in answering a series of questions, including those ones there. They don't want maritime crew visas to be at the same level as Australian crew visa checks. They have said clearly, as I've already stated to Senator Seselja and Senator Cash yesterday, that both of them recognise the fact that the MCV is a dud scheme. It's a scheme that does not give the same virility that we require for ASICs and MSICs, and specifically on our ports. One of the reasons they keep pressing, and the minister keeps pressing now, is that we have surveillance. People don't turn around and walk onto a wharf because they have criminal activity in mind. They go and get an MSIC or an ASIC.

Now, quite clearly, when we're dealing with security on our ports, we have to look at the serious nature of those people who are on the ships. It is a serious issue. I remind the minister that on 12 March 2021 exceptionally good work was done, as I recognised yesterday, by the Australian Federal Police, the ABF and New South Wales State Crime Command when they intercepted 200 kilos of cocaine. How did they intercept it? They intercepted it in a number of ways. What became clear is that those drugs were being dropped off the back of the ship—that's what the report says—to a daughter ship. That is the language they used. That boat then brought in the drugs. The crew members who handed over the drugs and were part of the arrangement were people who did not have a requirement to have appropriate and proper security checks done and would not have a capacity to have this done if the government were to pass the amendment.

This is about actually making sure that our ports are secure and that there are proper assessments—not an assessment, but proper assessments—ones that actually make sure that our borders are appropriately and properly protected. We've seen a series of questions that were raised by the Border Force, and I take the minister on face value. I have a lot of time for Border Force, but I have to say this: one of two things happened in Geelong. Either Border Force has been failing on the job or the government has interfered in the notification regarding this incident at this particular port, because they still have not turned around and answered a series of important questions raised by their community. A series of critical issues raised the things that need to be known in the Geelong community to make a difference.

It's incredibly important that people in Geelong have confidence that we have a proper system, as we have in the rest of Australia—a system that actually can make sure that those crew members have been checked and that, when something's dropped off the back of a ship, we have a chance to turn around and find the potential culprits before any culprits are involved. It's important that we turn around and have those unescorted crew members from foreign crews properly checked. It is a bit of a no-brainer. If you're a criminal, you don't get an ASIC or an MSIC; you don't apply for one. They're saying, 'Let's leave to it the criminals to decide whether they should have a higher degree of security check.' Can you believe it? We're going to ask the criminals whether they want to have a higher security check. Guess what the answer will be? No. It's obvious. It's what happens. It's practical. I don't even have to watch crime shows to know that. It's just common sense.

The government have to turn around and have a proper approach and a proper understanding of how they're dealing with these issues. They need to make sure, whether it be with Rio Tinto last year off the coast of Queensland, where four ships turned around and had MSIC security checks, because Australian crewed ships, including the companies they work for, are very mindful of the necessity for and the capacity of crew members to move around areas unescorted. They're also very mindful that there will be a higher level of scrutiny of the people who are on their ships. But what do we do when it comes to foreign ships? We say, 'We don't care. Rip it and burn.' No, sorry, we don't quite say that. We say, 'If you're a criminal, you can apply for one and be more highly security checked.' It is ludicrous!

From answers from questions yesterday, we quite clearly have the situation in our ports now where dozens of people can be not security checked up to the standard that's required. They can be on an MCV. They can be moving on and off our ports. But don't worry, as the minister said in the answer to one of questions earlier from Senator Keneally, not only do we close off all entry points—it didn't happen in Geelong; it didn't actually happen off the coast of Queensland last year either; it didn't happen in Port Botany. We haven't closed off all the points. In actual fact, you've got a ripping hole in the security of our country because you're not turning around and taking an appropriate stance on what is a very practical and sensible proposition from Labor. Why aren't they doing it? Are they covering up for cocaine dealers? I don't think that's correct. Are they not doing it because they don't care about terrorists coming into the country? I hope that's not correct. Are they not doing it because they want gun runners to be able to come into the country and run guns? I hope that's not correct. But I tell you what: as a consequence of what you're doing, it is correct. You've left our borders open. You've left the opportunities for turnaround and for these criminal gangs to operate in a fashion appropriate for them. Case after case after case proves the weaknesses within the border security arrangements that you have. The intention of this amendment is to make sure that those weaknesses are dealt with.

I want to ask this question of the minister: are the security arrangements adequate at Geelong port when it was said some days later to the Advertiser, 'We saw in security footage that the pair had crept at pace down a gangway and set of stairs before disappearing into the night'?